Man - A kinetic mass-energy blob

[petrushka.googol]

We start life as a zygote with finite mass but no energy exchange with our environment, then we progress to a state that we increase in mass and also our energy exchange with our environment increases together with our kinetic ability.

 

To end it all, we lose our energy exchange with our environment and aggregate as residual mass. (probably of combustion). viz. death.

 

There is a pattern to it all - first mass / then mass-energy / and lastly mass.

 

Is energy exchange the physical basis of life?

 

In biology protoplasm is the physical basis of life.

 

But in Physics?

 

What is your viewpoint?

 

Thanks in advance.

[John Cuthber]

Well, this

"We start life as a zygote with finite mass but no energy exchange with our environment"

is wrong.

Was there any point reading further?

[CaptainPanic]

I do not know what it is exactly that makes us alive, between being conceived and death. But I think your 'model' is not complicated enough to describe it.

 

But everything exchanges energy with its environment, whether it's a cell that was just conveived, or a corpse 10 feet under.

[swansont]

 

Is energy exchange the physical basis of life?

 

 

 

It's probably a necessary but insufficient condition.

[Greg H.]

 

Is energy exchange the physical basis of life?

 

 

Without further clarification, this would mean my refrigerator is alive.

[CaptainPanic]

Without further clarification, this would mean my refrigerator is alive.

 

Well, the OP does not say that "energy exchange the physical basis of only life". The word "only" isn't mentioned.

Energy exchange with the environment (biologists may call it metabolism or something - I'm not an expert) is definitely one of the things that defines life.

[petrushka.googol]

To clarify :

 

Well, this

"We start life as a zygote with finite mass but no energy exchange with our environment"

is wrong.

Was there any point reading further?

 

I am implying energy exchange between the somatic parent and the environment. (not local transfers).

 

I do not know what it is exactly that makes us alive, between being conceived and death. But I think your 'model' is not complicated enough to describe it.

 

But everything exchanges energy with its environment, whether it's a cell that was just conveived, or a corpse 10 feet under.

 

A corpse, as far as I know, does not show an increase in entropy.

 

 

Without further clarification, this would mean my refrigerator is alive.

 

If you could visualize a automaton with a carbon fibre body and an "interactive" intellect then by my hypotheses it could be defined as "living".

If you were to meet an alien with the above description would you write it's epitaph and label it "Dead" or try to interact with it?

Would it not then still be living? (albeit unconventionally)....

I think you get my drift....

[John Cuthber]

"I am implying energy exchange between the somatic parent and the environment. (not local transfers)."

All transfers are local on a galactic scale, but not on an intramolecular scale.

Scale is a matter of viewpoint, not absolute.

 

What did you actually mean?

 

"A corpse, as far as I know, does not show an increase in entropy."

It does.

 

"If you could visualize a automaton with a carbon fibre body and an "interactive" intellect then by my hypotheses it could be defined as "living"."

Yes.

And so could a fridge.

Unless you actually believe that a

fridge is alive, your hypothesis is wrong.

[petrushka.googol]

"I am implying energy exchange between the somatic parent and the environment. (not local transfers)."

All transfers are local on a galactic scale, but not on an intramolecular scale.

Scale is a matter of viewpoint, not absolute.

 

What did you actually mean?

 

"A corpse, as far as I know, does not show an increase in entropy."

It does.

 

"If you could visualize a automaton with a carbon fibre body and an "interactive" intellect then by my hypotheses it could be defined as "living"."

Yes.

And so could a fridge.

Unless you actually believe that a

fridge is alive, your hypothesis is wrong.

 

A zygote has an existence only in the context of its mother. It is encapsulated from the exterior by its mother's body. Its "data exchange" with the macro-environment is thus null. That is what i am implying.

 

A corpse (at least one that is buried) decomposes to simpler substances. From complex molecules the transition is towards simpler aggregates. This is what i am trying to say.

 

A fridge "alive". Well yes, if there is a paradigm shift in the context of what you define as "living". The definition of living in 2250 may not be that which we readily accept today....

[John Cuthber]

"A zygote has an existence only in the context of its mother. It is encapsulated from the exterior by its mother's body. Its "data exchange" with the macro-environment is thus null. That is what i am implying."

No

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation

 

"A corpse (at least one that is buried) decomposes to simpler substances. From complex molecules the transition is towards simpler aggregates. This is what i am trying to say."

And those simpler materials spread out leading to a greater degree of disorder i.e. higher entropy.

 

"A fridge "alive". Well yes, if there is a paradigm shift in the context of what you define as "living". The definition of living in 2250 may not be that which we readily accept today...."

It's not my definition that calls a fridge alive, it's yours.

You are the one who asked about this definition.

 

"Is energy exchange the physical basis of life?"

 

And now you should realise that the answer to the question is clearly no.

because, if that were the basis of life then a fridge would be alive.